Explain the purpose of criminal punishment and comment upon how effectively these are achieved by the different types of sentences available to the courts.
Explain the purpose of criminal punishment and comment upon how effectively these are achieved by the different types of sentences available to the courts. Sentencing is a form of criminal punishment, whereby the defendant is given a decision of what penalty should be imposed on a person who is guilty of a criminal offence. The sitting judge takes into account the serious of the offence, information about the defendant i.e. previous convictions for similar offences, any explanatory circumstances and lastly sentencing aims. In the Criminal Justice Act 1991 the aims of sentencing are clearly outlined. There are six theories of sentencing are on Retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation and incapacitation, denunciation and reparation. Retribution being that the guilty party should suffer a sufficient punishment for his wrong doing so that justice can be satisfied. The punishment is proportionate to the committed crime i.e. get what he deserves ("just deserts"), thus for example the Court of Appeal clearly has shown that there are different types of sentencing for being in possession of an illegal drug, due to the various types and amount of the drug in possession. Deterrence is an act or process of discouraging actions or preventing occurrences by instilling fear or doubt or anxiety to stop a repetition or the crime. Penalties intentionally to have this effect are prison
Critically discuss whether the criminal courts of England and Wales require substantial reform. Firstly I am going to focus on the criminal process and the different divisions of the courts within the practice. I will then describe the extent to which app
Critically discuss whether the criminal courts of England and Wales require substantial reform? In this essay I am going to research the different options and routes available through the courts in the English legal system and whether they require considerable improvement. Firstly I am going to focus on the criminal process and the different divisions of the courts within the practice. I will then describe the extent to which applications of modern technology are now being used in the courts of England and Wales, the substantial modernisation plans that are currently being implemented in some of the courts, how they can improve it and something of a vision of the future. This essay is concerned with the criminal courts, and I am directing my attention only to courts and the court process, not to the police, to investigators, to prosecutors, nor or to those who act for defendants nor to those who keep them in custody or supervise them after conviction. But I want to lay down this important marker. None of us works in isolation. Decisions by the police and prosecuting authorities affect the way in which the courts do their work, just as decisions by the courts affect prison numbers. All are independent of each other, but all operate within the criminal justice system. The process of critical re-examination and re evaluation of the system should be constant, but we should not
Recommendations of the Woolf Report 1996.
The Woolf Report 1996 The civil justice system we have presently is based on the reforms recommended by Lord Woolf in his report Access to Justice. This report identified the problems in our previous system and also identified a number of principles which the civil system should meet in order to ensure access to justice. The problems that were identified were: * The process was too expensive, costs often exceeded the value of the claim * The process was too slow in bringing cases to a conclusion * There is lack of equality between the powerful, wealthy litigant and the under-resourced litigant. * Too uncertain: the difficulty of forecasting what litigation will cost and how long it will last induces the fear of the unknown. * Incomprehensible to many litigants * It was too fragmented in the way it is organised since there is no one with clear overall responsibility for the administration of civil justice and lastly * The process was too adverserial as cases are run by the parties, not by the courts and the rules of court, all too often are ignored by the parties and not enforced by the court. In 1995 Lord Woolf made the following recommendations for the civil justice system: * A civil system should be fair in the results it delivers * Be fair in the way it treats litigants * Offer appropriate procedures at a reasonable cost, there will be fixed costs for cases on
Woolf Reforms
a) Explain the changes applied by the civil courts as a result of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Before the implementation of the Woolf reforms the Civil Justice Review was set up in 1985 by the Lord Chancellor in response to public criticism of the delay, cost and complexity of the civil court system. These key problem areas were also picked up on in Lord Woolf's report in 1996, he stated that a civil justice system should be just in the results it delivers, be fair in the way it treats litigants, offer appropriate procedures at a reasonable cost, deal with cases with reasonable speed, be understandable to those who use it, be responsive to the needs of those who use it, provide as much certainty as the nature of particular cases allows and, be effective, adequately resourced and organised. Lord Woolf claimed that the system failed to achieve all these goals, and also commented that this failure was inevitable, as some of the aims conflict with others, such as promoting efficiency in terms of speed conflicts with the need of fairness. While conflicting interests may mean it is impossible to achieve a civil justice system that satisfies everyone, there were serious concerns that the civil justice system before the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 was giving satisfaction to only a small minority of users. Research carried out for Woolf's review found that the cost was greater
Corporate Separate Personality
Critically assess the effects of Corporate Separate Personality A company is one which can vary in size and in what kind of speciality and products they offer but they all have a few common factors amongst one another. All companies must comply with effects of registration by following the statutes in the companies Act 2006 s 16. A sector of this statute1 states that when a company consists of shares the members who have subscribed to the memorandum of association can then become the holders of the shares they had subscribed. The two similarities I am going to look at are; limited liability and separate legal personality. The latter refers to the liability of the members of a company is limited by the number of shares they hold. If the company faces a point during their incorporation where they have insufficient funds the company's creditors cannot seek the amount from members. Separate legal personality is when a company is a separate legal person, distinct from its members and directors.2 The foundations of company law was established in Saloman v Saloman & Co. where the father Mr.Saloman was distinguished as a separate legal entity from its shareholders, which in turn means Mr Saloman was deemed only to liable for himself, and its shareholder were all individually liable for themselves. Adams v Cape industries Plc3 confirmed the decision is saloman on application of the
Criminal question - Unfortunately Lisa may only be sentenced to 18 months maximum custodial sentence as she was tried in the Magistrate's court.
Criminal question: Unfortunately Lisa may only be sentenced to 18 months maximum custodial sentence as she was tried in the Magistrate's court. If however this did arise, or similarly on her 18-month sentence Lisa has the option to appeal as there are also some offences, which can be tried in either both the Magistrates Court and Crown Court. These are called offences tribal either way e.g. Actual Bodily Harm, Burglary. The Court will ask you to indicate a plea. If a not guilty plea is entered, the Prosecution will invite the Court to either accept jurisdiction i.e. to keep the case in the Magistrates Court, or decline jurisdiction and commit the matter to the Crown Court for trial. The Magistrates may be of the opinion that their sentencing powers are not sufficient and commit the case to the Crown Court. The maximum sentence a Magistrates Court can pass is twelve months imprisonment for two or more either way offences. Your Solicitor can make representations on your behalf. If the Magistrates decide that the case can proceed in the Magistrates Court, you have the choice to either proceed in that Court or elect to be tried by a Judge and Jury in the Crown Court. When matters are to proceed in the Crown Court, the case will be adjourned for a committal hearing. At the hearing, if your Solicitor considers that there is a case against you, the matter will be committed to a
Juries in NSW
Juries in NSW Table of contents . Introduction 2. The role of the jury in NSW 3. The role of the jury in criminal and civil trials 4. Eligibility for jury service in NSW 5. Jury selection 6. The advantages and disadvantages of the jury system in NSW in 2005 7. Conclusion/recommendation 8. Bibliography The jury system plays a very important part in the running of the courts. The jury system is needed in both criminal and civil cases. There are advantages of the jury system as well as disadvantages. However, the jury system is still very important to the justice system. The role of the jury in NSW A jury is a group of people from the community with all sorts of backgrounds, beliefs, religions, education levels and ages, who listens to the evidence of the cases and helps the court to decide the outcome of the cases. Jury duty in NSW is a very important responsibility, providing a link between the justice system and the community. The role of the jury in criminal trials In criminal trials, the jury consists of 12 people and the jury's duty is to decide whether the person accused is guilty or not guilty of a crime. The jury listens to the judge's instructions, information given out by the prosecutor and most importantly, the evidence. Then the 12 jurors must agree on the same decision whether the accused is guilty or not. If they decide that the accused is innocent,
Law and Justice Essay
Law And Justice Justice is hard to define, as it means differently to different people. Generally, it means fairness and equality. The dictionary definition would be the upholding of rights and the punishments of wrongs, by law. There are different doctrines relating to justice. Rules of Natural Justice are meant to ensure that trials are fair and that both parties must have the opportunity to put their case forward and to have both sides of the story, an example of this is seen, in R v Bingham where defendant was convicted after a chair of magistrates said that he always believed a police officer in cases where evidence consisted of a policeman's word against defendant's. Aristotle taught that fairness is the basis of justice that we find in two forms. Distributive Justice regarding the allocation of assets where the aim of justice is to achieve proportion. Corrective Justice is concerned with restoring a balance which has been disturbed whether by a voluntary or involuntary act. This is concerned with equality; the law looks only to the character of the injury and treats the parties as equal. It doesn't make a difference if a good man defrauded a bad man or the other way round. Economic theories like Marx, Rawls and Nozick calculate the effect of a law of policy in terms of the law the greatest happiness of a greatest number. Rawls said that the only way to achieve
Discuss the nature of legal and moral rules , and consider whether the law does and should reflect moral rules
Discuss the nature of legal and moral rules. Consider whether the law does and should reflect moral rules. ( AQA A2 UNIT 6 - LAW AND MORALS ) A rule was defined by Twining and Miers as a general norm mandating conduct. For a legal rule, the breaking of rules will result in a punishment, such as a fine, prison or a criminal record. Legal rules are there to keep society in order. Moral rules, however, are sometimes not deliberately made, and are within the individual due to beliefs they have, or due to the fact they would feel guilty if they participated in the breaking of the rule. Sometimes moral rules come from religion. For example, Muslims can only eat meat if it Halal meat. Therefore, Muslim children will grow up with the idea that it is wrong to eat any other meat. Moral rules, if broken, have no punishment apart from the person's guilt. Hart believes that rules are obeyed for three reasons: The moral obligation carried with them; because the rules are reasonable and relevant; and because a penalty could be imposed if they are broken. The law may reflect moral values to some extent. The United Kingdom is mainly a Christian country, and so many of our morals would come from the Ten Commandments. The law reflects some of these morals. For example, the law against murder, set down in the Homicide Act 1957, reflects the moral set in the Ten Commandments: 'Thou shall
Discuss the meaning of 'justice'. Consider the extent to which justice is achieved in the application of legal rules. Relate your answer to examples drawn from civil law, criminal law or both
Discuss the meaning of 'justice'. Consider the extent to which justice is achieved in the application of legal rules. Relate your answer to examples drawn from civil law, criminal law or both When the dictionary definitions of justice are considered, it is difficult to interpret a straightforward meaning of justice as the definitions can vary. Osborn's Concise Law Dictionary defines justice as 'the upholding of rights, and the punishment of wrongs, by the law'. The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines justice as 'just conduct; fairness; exercise of authority in maintenance of right. (Just = acting or done in accordance with what is morally right or proper.) (Fair = free from discrimination, dishonesty... in conformity with rules or standards.)' In the first definition, it is defined that unjust conduct is that which is punishable by law, and although there is a certain level of ambiguity, a clear connection between law and justice can be seen. The second definition draws more of a connection between morality and justice; acts which are immoral are unjust. There are many occasions where law and justice naturally coincide, however there occasions where they do not. It is very difficult to define justice itself, however it can be described as a moral value, which people should follow if the wish to lead a good life. C. H. Perelman set out six possible meanings of justice, based
